The National Assessment Governing Board
ARTS EDUCATION
ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
Second Printing 6/94
Approved by The National Assessment Governing Board
March 5, 1994
Prepared by
The Council of Chief State School Officers
with
The College Board
and
The Council for Basic Education
National Assessment Governing Board
March, 1994
MARK D. MUSICK, Chair
President
Southern Regional Education Board
Atlanta, Georgia
HONORABLE WILLIAM T. RANDALL, Vice Chair
Commissioner of Education
State Department of Education
Denver, Colorado
PARRIS C. BATTLEEducation Specialist
Office of Grants Administration
Miami Springs, Florida
HONORABLE EVAN BAYH
Governor of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
MARY R. BLANTON
Attorney
Blanton and Blanton
Salisbury, North Carolina
**LINDA R. BRYANT
Dean of Students
Florence Reizenstein Middle School
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
HONORABLE NAOMI K. COHEN
Former Representative
State of Connecticut
Hartford, Connecticut
CHARLOTTE A. CRABTREE
Professor of Education
University of California
Los Angeles, California
CHESTER E. FINN, JR.
Founding Partner & Sr. Scholar
The Edison Project
Washington, DC
MICHAEL J. GUERRA
Executive Director
National Catholic Education Association
Secondary School Department
Washington, DC
*WILLIAM (JERRY) HUME
Chairman
Basic American, Inc,
San Francisco, California
*CHRISTINE JOHNSON
Director of Urban Initiatives
Education Commission of the States
Denver, Colorado
JOHN S. LINDLEY
Director, Admin., Training & Development
Clark County School District
Las Vegas, Nevada
*JAN B. LOVELESS
Educational Consultant
Jan B. Loveless & Associates
Midland, Michigan / *MARILYN McCONACHIE
Local School Board Member
Glenview, Illinois
HONORABLE STEPHEN E. MERRILL
Governor of New Hampshire
Concord, New Hampshire
JASON MILLMAN
Prof. of Educational Research Methodology
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
HONORABLE RICHARD P. MILLS
Commissioner of Education
State Department of Education
Montpelier, Vermont
WILLIAM J. MOLONEY
Superintendent of Schools
Calvert County Public Schools
Prince Frederick, Maryland
MITSUGI NAKASHIMA
Hawaii State Board of Education
Honolulu, Hawaii
MICHAEL T. NETTLES
Professor of Education & Public Policy
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
HONORABLE EDGAR D. ROSS
Senator
Christiansted, St. Croix
U.S. Virgin Islands
MARILYN A. WHIRRY
12th Grade English Teacher
Mira Costa High School
Manhattan Beach, California
SHARON P. ROBINSON (ex-officio)
Assistant Secretary
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
U.S. Department of Education Washington, DC
Roy Truby
Executive Director
Mary Crovo
Project Officer
** Chair, Subject Area Committee #2
* Member, Subject Area Committee #2
The National Assessment Governing Board
ARTS EDUCATION
ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
Second Printing 6/94
Approved by The National Assessment Governing Board
March 5, 1994
Prepared by
The Council of Chief State School Officers
with
The College Board
and
The Council for Basic Education
Contract RN 92167001
NAEP Arts Education Consensus Project
Team
Council of Chief State School Officers
Ramsay Selden
Project Director
Frank Philip
Consensus Coordinator
Bonnie L. Verrico
Administrative Assistant
•
The Council for Basic Education
A. Graham Down
Ruth Mitchell
•
The College Board
Robert Orrill
Carol Myford
Joan Peterson
Dennis Palmer-Wolf
The Arts Education Assessment Framework for the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress was approved by the National Assessment Governing Board on March 5, 1994.
Developed for the National Assessment Governing Board under contract number RN 92167001 by the Council of Chief State School Officers with The Council for Basic Education and The College Board. Funding for this contract was provided by the National Endowment for the Arts, in collaboration with the Getty Center for Education in the Arts, a program of the J. Paul Getty Trust.
For further information, contact the National Assessment Governing Board:
800 North Capitol Street, N.W.
Suite 825
Washington, DC 20002-4233
What is The Nation's Report Card?
THE NATION'S REPORT CARD, the National Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP). is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in reading. mathematics, science, writing, history/geography, and other fields. By making objective information m student performance available to policymakers at the national, ,state, and local levels, NAEP is m integral part of our nation's evaluation of the condition and progress of education. Only information related to academic achievement is collected under this program. NAEP guarantees the privacy of individual students and their families.
NAEP is a congressionally mandated project of the National Center for Education Statistics, the U.S. Department of Education. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible, by law, for carrying out the NAEP project through competitive awards to qualified organizations. NAEP reports directly to the Commissioner, who is also responsible for providing continuing reviews, including validation studies and solicitation of public comment, on NAEP's conduct and usefulness.
In 1988, Congress created the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) to formulate policy guidelines for NAEP. The board is responsible for selecting the subject areas to be assessed, which may include adding to those specified by Congress; identifying appropriate achievement goals for each age and grade; developing assessment objectives; developing test specifications; designing the assessment methodology; developing guidelines and standards for data analysis and for reporting and disseminating results; developing standards and procedures for interstate, regional and national comparisons; improving the form and use of the National Assessment; and ensuring that all items selected for use in the National Assessment are free from racial, cultural, gender, or regional bias.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION: The Development of the 1996 NAEP Arts Education Framework 1
The National Assessment Of Educational Progress 1
The Consensus Process. 1
NAEP and the National Standards 2
Development of the Framework: 2
Issues 2
National Hearings. 2
Next Steps. 3
Guidelines for the Project. 3
CHAPTER I: The Arts in U.S. Education 5
Importance of NAEP to Arts Education 5
The Role of Arts Education 6
The Shape of the 1996 Arts Education NAEP 7
CHAPTER II: The Content and Processes of the Arts 11
Definitions: 11
Processes 11
Content 11
Figure 1: Arts Areas: Processes and Content 13
Content Specific to Each of the Four Arts 14
Dance 14
Music 16
Theatre 18
Visual Arts 20
CHAPTER III: Desired Attributes of the Arts Education Assessment 23
Sample of Students 23
Authenticity of Tasks 23
Characteristics of the Assessment Tasks 24
Forms of Student Response Used in Tasks 24
Exercise Formats 24
Student Responses 24
Length of Performance Exercises and Tasks 25
Physical Environment for the Assessment 25
Resources 25
Attributes of Assessment Facilitators 25
Special Studies 25
1. An Exploration of Interdisciplinary Assessment 26
2. A Portfolio Study 27
3. Comparing Arts Education Programs 27
Background Information 28
Ethical Responsibilities to Students 28
Issues and Strategies Specific to Each Art Form 28
Dance 28
Music 29
Theatre 30
Visual Arts 31
Desired Emphasis for Each Arts Area 32
Dance 32
Music 32
Theatre 33
Visual Arts 33
CHAPTER IV: Preliminary Achievement Level Descriptions 34
Dance 35
Music 38
Theatre 44
Visual Arts 49
Appendices 55
APPENDIX A: Content Outlines 55
Dance 57
Music 63
Theatre 73
Visual Arts 79
APPENDIX B: General Descriptions of Present Arts Education Programming in the Schools 88
APPENDIX C: Public Hearings 91
APPENDIX D: Schedules and Timelines 95
APPENDIX E: Steering Committee 96
APPENDIX F: Planning Committee 97
APPENDIX G: Management Team 98
19
1997 NAEP Arts Education Framework • Photocopying Permitted
INTRODUCTION
1997 NAEP Arts Education Framework Development
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America’s students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted to provide comprehensive information on student knowledge and skills at ages 9, 13, 17, and more recently for students in grades 4, 8, and 12. By making the information on student performance and related factors available to policy makers, parents, educators, and the general public, NAEP is an integral part of our nation’s evaluation of the condition and progress of student achievement.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress is a Congressionally mandated project of the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. In 1988, Congress created the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) to set policy for NAEP. The 24 member, broadly representative board is responsible for selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment objectives and specifications through a national consensus process, and setting appropriate achievement goals, among other responsibilities.
The Consensus Process
The development of the framework for the proposed 1997 assessment of arts education will mark the third time the subjects of music and the visual arts have been addressed in a national assessment. Music was previously assessed in 1972 and 1978, and the visual arts in 1975 and 1978. In January of 1992, the National Assessment Governing Board issued a request for proposals to develop an assessment framework and specifications for a planned 1997 Arts Education Assessment. The contract was awarded to the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) with the College Board and the Council for Basic Education as sub-contractors. The eighteen-month project started in September of 1992 and concluded in March of 1994.
The purpose of the contract was to develop and recommend a framework and other design features for an arts education assessment that includes the areas of dance, music, theatre, and the visual arts. The recommended form of the assessment was designed by a 32-member Planning Committee with guidance from a Steering Committee. The Planning Committee was responsible for reaching consensus on content and contributing to the assessment framework and the other design documents. Composed of K-12 teachers and arts educators from higher education, practicing artists, assessment specialists, and lay persons, the Planning Committee was chaired by Frank Philip (CCSSO). (See Appendix F for list of names.)
The project was guided by a 29-member Steering Committee (see Appendix E for list of names), co-chaired by Ramsay Selden (Director of the State Education Assessment Center at CCSSO and Project Director) and A. Graham Down (President, Council for Basic Education). It includes representatives from professional education organizations, parent groups, artist organizations, representatives from business, policymakers, and the public at-large. The Steering Committee provided policy and procedural guidance during the project.
NAEP and National Standards: Cooperation and Coordination
The development of the NAEP Arts Education Assessment Framework has coincided with the development of the National Standards for Education in the Arts. This confluence of a standards-setting process and its immediate application in creating a national assessment provide an unprecedented opportunity to align standards and assessment in a model for arts education.
The two projects—NAEP and National Standards—have a special role in establishing the importance of the arts in the education of all American students.
The leadership of both groups has ensured the coordination of the projects in every aspect of the work from crafting a common vision through matching schedules and sharing personnel. From the project’s inception, the process has been predicated on the assumption that the National Standards and the NAEP Assessment should reflect a common vision of arts education.
At the leadership level, A. Graham Down, Chair of the Oversight Committee for the standards project, also co-chaired the Steering Committee for the assessment project. Seven members, or approximately one-fourth of the Standards Oversight Committee, were also invited to serve on the Steering Committee for the assessment project. Frank Philip and Joan Peterson, who have co-chaired the National Council of State Arts Education Consultants task force for the standards project, served as coordinator for the NAEP arts assessment project and consultant for the College Board,(a sub-contractor to CCSSO) respectively.
In the NAEP Assessment Planning Committee, each of the four subcommittees had representatives from the writing task forces of the standards project as well as either the president or the president-elect of the national arts education professional organizations. Each of the executive directors of the major national arts education organizations was a member of the Steering Committee of the assessment project.
The meeting schedule, the dates for hearings, and the release of drafts for the assessment project have been aligned to follow similar events of the standards project. The standards project has shared the developing drafts of the standards with the Planning Committee of the assessment project in a regular and timely fashion to assure a smooth articulation between the two.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FRAMEWORK
Issues
An Issues Paper, which identified the major areas of concern for the assessment design, was written by Ruth Mitchell and Dennis Palmer Wolf, consultants to the project. Published in early January of 1993, the paper was designed to be the focus for the national hearings scheduled in February. The paper helped frame significant questions for the assessment and placed them in a broader context for understanding the role and feasibility of a national assessment in the arts.
National Hearings
In considering the design of the proposed national assessment for arts education, the project’s management team decided to seek public input at two points in the development process.
The February, 1993 hearings were designed to gather responses and reactions to the Issues Paper. The San Francisco hearing was held in conjunction with a major arts education conference attended by many prominent writers and leaders of arts education. The Orlando, Florida hearing was held at a time and place where teachers, parents and students could attend. The New York City hearing attracted the arts community from one of the major population centers of our country.
The October, 1993 hearings were conducted in Seattle, Chicago, and Washington, DC to solicit input and reaction to a draft of the Assessment Framework. A brief description can be found in Appendix C and a complete report is available from CCSSO.
Next Steps
The consensus process has produced the design documents and recommendations. This Framework describes the proposed assessment. The Specifications Document prescribes the detail for developing the assessment instrument. Additionally, the consensus work has produced documents that suggest the nature and range of background information that should be collected along with the assessment (The Background Questions), and a set of strategies for reporting the results to the public and the field (The Reporting Strategies). The second phase of the process began with a contract awarded to the Educational Testing Service by the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics for the design of the assessment exercises in May of 1994. Field testing of the exercises is scheduled for February of 1995 and 1996.